Pie Buddy: Ryan
Topic: Why I’m not a Christian (Part 1, A
humanist/naturalist’s perspective)
I’ve had a few people recommend Red Door Bakery to me, so I decided it was time to give it a crack. Might I just say, this place has an element of class to it that not many bakeries achieve. If the Queen came to Adelaide and wanted to eat a sausage roll (not that either of those things ever happen), I reckon this is where she’d send her servants to get one from. The menu range is a class above the rest – no pepper steak pies on offer, so I had to make do with an Angus beef organic, free range pie (there was another fancy word in there that I’ve forgotten). My fellow pie crusader Ryan went with a beef and mushroom pie. With meat that fancy, I guess you can’t afford to use too much, and so the pie seemed to mostly consist of pastry. Amazingly good pastry though, probably the flakiest pastry I’ve ever eaten. The meat filling was nice as well, but it certainly wasn’t the meatiest pie I’ve ever had. And instead of simple tomato sauce, I was given the choice between onion chilli jam and spicy tomato relish. They’ve certainly taken the humble meat pie and redesigned it for a class of people much more sophisticated than it’s working class pioneers (pie-oneers if you will). And charged $6 for it, which seemed a bit steep. I also opted for a chocolate and macadamia brownie, which hit the spot nicely. The place was busy the whole time we were there, so people obviously recognise that this place is a good spot. Personally though, it’s a little too upmarket for me. I still enjoyed my meal though.
Ryan and I got chatting. We started by briefly discussing
our personal beliefs, and how we came to those views, so that we each
understood where the other was coming from. I explained how I’d grown up in a
family that believed in God, but that it wasn’t until I went to a church that
provided solid biblical teaching that I came to understand what it meant to be
a Christian. I began to see Christianity not as a set of rules followed out of
fear, but as a response of joyful obedience.
Ryan grew up with a believing mum and an unbelieving dad. He
attended Sunday School as a child, but didn’t keep going to church later in
life. “ I still identified as a Christian until I was around 21.” he said, “I
thought it provided a good explanation for a lot of things in life, like the
complexity of life. You can’t just throw paint at a piece of paper and have it
turn into a nice painting. You’ve got to work hard to make it that special. So
Christianity seemed like a likely explanation for the origin of life of humans.
So I stuck with that, as I thought it was the best answer for the big
questions.”
He then explained how he got into programming, and found
that a computer program called Conway’s Game of Life was able to randomly
generate images of things similar to what we see in the natural world. This
made him realise that simple rules can create complexity, and that perhaps the
world, like a computer program, could run on its own once the wheels were in
motion.
“So are you saying you believe in a creator?” I asked.
“There could be a creator, but only to set the rules,” Ryan
replied. “After that, it doesn’t need any intervention to be shaped into
complex things.”
I suggested that this was essentially the philosophy of
deism – that God creates, then lets things run their natural course without
intervening.
“Yeah,” said Ryan, “and possibly it was set up by something,
and if that’s true, then that thing must have been set up by something else,
and you end up with a chain that you can’t really follow back, because you
can’t follow anything back before the big bang. So I saw the world as just
needing a starting point and a set of rules.”
“So you still think there’s a creator?”
“There’s a possibility of a creator,” Ryan acknowledged.
I decided to keep going with the computer program analogy. “The
computer program’s all very well, but someone’s built the computer, someone’s
put the program in, and someone’s making sure there’s an electricity supply to
keep it running.”
“Exactly, I agree,” said Ryan. “So the rules must have been
made. But they don’t necessarily need to be set up by a person fine-tuning it.
There could just be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of settings,
and the one that supports life is the one we’re living in today. And this could
have happened over an infinite number of years.”
This is commonly known as the multiverse philosophy. “Is
that something you believe, or are you just flagging it as a possibility?” I
asked.
“It’s a possibility, just like the idea of a creator. The
idea of an interventionist creator is quite difficult to believe.”
“What do you mean by interventionist?” I asked.
“A person on the planet, like Jesus, who shapes the future
of the world, who punishes someone for sinning and then changes the future of
the world,” said Ryan. “It seems possible, but I just think that would have
shown up somewhere evidently. Even a miracle is only proof because it’s
witnessed, but then once it’s written down, people won’t actually call it
evidence, because it’s eyewitness evidence. If people at a crime scene report
different things, that’s not reliable evidence, you need more tangible,
repeatable evidence. I’d expect to see more indisputable evidence that
convinces everyone to follow that God, rather than other Gods, but that
evidence hasn’t arisen. I don’t see how eyewitness evidence is solid evidence.”
“How is that any different to believing that Julius Caesar
was alive?” I asked.
“That’s also eyewitness evidence, and I believe Jesus was
alive as much as I believe Caesar was alive, but you have to understand how
much is fact and how much is fiction,” Ryan replied.
“So you think Jesus’ life has been over-elaborated a bit?”
“Yeah, a bit of artistic license.” Ryan gave the example of
the movie Braveheart, which was a huge exaggeration of the life of William
Wallace (about which little is actually known)
“So you came to see the Bible as something that was true,
but exaggerated?”
“I think with the Bible, if it entertains, then it’s more
likely to be passed from person to person,” said Ryan. “So if it’s not a
compelling book, the religion will die. The Bible is compelling, but as to how
much truth is in it, that’s up to each person to decide.”
“What about all the lists and genealogies?” I asked. “If JK
Rowling wrote stuff like that, she would’ve sold a lot less books.”
“It’s not exactly a page-tuner,” said Ryan, “but I think the
Bible has enough principles to make people want to change their lives, which
then draws other people along too, and it grows. There are lots of great
principles in the Bible that can make someone a better person. If you look at
any religious text, there’s always a moral fibre to them, there’s guidance on
what to do in life.”
“Do you think Jesus was real?” I asked.
“Yeah, there are so many accounts of Jesus. The evidence
that he is real is a lot better than the evidence that he wasn’t. I think he
was a special, talented person, who was able to guide people toward making good
decisions.”
“Where do you draw the line with what’s said about him in
the Bible? At what point do you think ‘nah, that’s rubbish’?”
“2000 years ago we’re dealing with a society that believes
in magic,” said Ryan. “A lot of the things in the Bible that were thought of as
miracles, like raising the dead and healing the sick, already happen in today’s
society. We have chiropractors and doctors, and defibrillators if someone’s
heart stops beating. And anyway,
“In a couple of cases though, the person was dead for around
four days. And what are the odds of one guy doing it three times to different
people?”
“He was clearly a very skilled person, very much in sync
with nature, including how people’s bodies work, and he understands how to
treat them.”
We discussed the healing of blind and paralysed people. Ryan
questioned the extent of the disabilities in these healings, given that
eyewitnesses don’t know the full stories of people they interact with, and so
can easily conclude that a healing is miraculous when it isn’t. I pointed out
the account of Jesus healing a blind man, whose parents testified that he was
born blind (John 9).
Ryan was cautious of reading too much into a book that was
obviously written from a Christian perspective. It was a fair point. You would
expect a book on a particular topic or worldview to be biased in favour of that
worldview. He reasoned that it was important to look at both sides of an
argument to find the truth in the middle.
“Is that always the case though?” I asked. “If you’ve got an
argument, will the truth always be in the middle?”
“No, it’s a case-by-case basis,” said Ryan. “But you can’t
just consider one side and disregard the other just because your natural
instincts tell you it’s true. You need rationality.”
“And it comes down to whether you think it’s important or
not,” I said. “If you’ve never thought about Christianity, you’ll see no need
for it. But once you think through the implications of what you believe in, you
realise there is a need to look at the facts and make a decision. I always find
it sad seeing people who don’t look at the facts and think things through
carefully.”
“I agree with that. Many wrong decisions are the easy
decisions to make,” said Ryan.
We then had a look at the topic from a philosophical point
of view. “Achieving goals in life will bring me joy, not happiness,” said Ryan.
“If you want to be happy, to feel like you’re doing something worthwhile, I
think doing humanitarian work is the way to go.”
“Making the world a better place?”
“Yeah, not just looking after your own interests, but the interests
of others. If you work really hard, sure you can get a nice house, but I think
looking out for other people will bring more happiness. And religion does
provide a great moral structure. A lot of things in the Bible regarding
morality are absolutely true, like treating poor people with respect and
treating your enemies as you treat your friends.”
“When you say true, what’s that based on?” I asked.
“Not just my
worldview, because everyone has their subjective thoughts“ said Ryan. “I look
into books, conversations with people, find out what their concerns are, and
see if that reconciles with my concerns.”
“So would you say that the moral laws of the Bible are
reflective of general human moral laws?”
“A lot of them definitely are,” Ryan replied. “But I think
at some point you have to go beyond the Bible, because it can’t teach you how
to treat homosexuals in a respectful way. It’s hard to align yourself with a
book that’s disrespectful towards homosexuals. And there’s a passage about how
a woman cannot exercise authority over a man, or teach, but must remain silent.
You read that and it’s quite extreme! I’d rather align my views with something
that I believe is right from beginning to end. That’s what I struggle with,
with Christianity. If I just picked out the good bits, I’d be completely happy
with it.”
I briefly outlined my thoughts on the issues of how the
Bible treats women and homosexuals. I’m sure I’ll delve deeper into these in
another blog post. As I see it, men are not superior to women, but both sexes have
complementary, God-given roles. The husband really has the harder role of the
two – he is called to love his wife as Christ loved the church (which was by
sacrificing his own life). Read in the context of the time, the Bible is
actually counter-culturally supportive of women in society. As for
homosexuality, I see no biblical basis for homosexual orientation being sinful.
I think this is a common and extremely dangerous misconception.
I continued with the philosophical side of the discussion. “Can
I ask you this – are you choosing your worldview based on what is true, or what
is convenient for you?”
“The philosopher’s idea of truth is that you reconcile what
you believe with what you experience, and then you come to what you believe is
true,” replied Ryan. “Reconciling what’s in the Bible to what’s in the world is
sometimes very difficult, because you don’t see these miracles or
interventions, and the last time you could have seen those was a long time ago.
You can definitely benefit from the Bible and have a great life, but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that everything’s true, it just means that the
principles work.”
“So if we’re looking at what your barriers to Christianity
are, one would be that there’s not enough concrete evidence?”
“Yeah, when I recognise
that eye witness accounts aren’t always reliable, then I really struggle to see
that as evidence,” Ryan replied.
Examining the evidence for Christianity is a fascinating
exercise. And this is also where faith comes into play.
Faith is being sure of
what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)
Although I personally believe that there is sufficient
evidence to see Christianity as being a rational belief, it clearly lacks the
rock-hard, unavoidable, entirely conclusive evidence that some people will
demand. We can’t all meet with the resurrected Jesus like Thomas did. We are
required to live by faith. Faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), and it
enables us to be fully persuaded that God will do the things that he has
promised (Romans 4:21). So while Christians may (and should) use rational
arguments to defend their beliefs, a God-given faith is ultimately underlying our
worldview. No one can become a Christian without God’s help.
“At what point in the Christian story, would you butt in and
say ‘nah, that didn’t happen’? Like if we look at Old Testament, New Testament,
the early church history, the growth of the church to where it is today.” I
find that this is an interesting question to ask people. Personally, as I look
over the origin and history of Christianity, I can’t see a clear point where it
becomes clear that the gospel message has been fabricated.
“When it conflicts with my idea of reality, my understanding
of what happens in the world, what happens personally and reading what other
people think and coming to a conclusion of what my foundation of morals is –
when I come across the treatment of women, the limitations on women, that’s
where I struggle. A woman should be able to decide her limits, I don’t think
rules should do that.”
I was trying to get to the bottom of Ryan’s objections. “So
you’d probably say you have more a philosophical objection to Christianity
rather than an evidence-based objection? If you could come to embrace the
philosophical implications of Christianity, would that at least make you
willing to explore it?”
“Yeah, I’m certainly not going to go through and say I can
disprove this, this and this, it would be like claiming you knew the true life
of Julius Caesar. That would just be speculation, and quite arrogant. It’s not
something I feel I need to explore. I’d be happy to live my life and not
explore it, on the basis that I’ve explored other things that are just as
compelling or powerful.” Ryan then proceeded to point out the number of
possible worldviews that could be explored. It would be impossible to invest in
all of them. “The principle is, I don’t think being a Christian or not is
important, I would say that making good moral decisions that improve the world
are important. If I could do that, I’d be happy with my life.”
“I’d see it as an eternal thing,” I replied. “If what
Christians claim is true, then it’s not just about a good moral life, there are
eternal implications.”
“There are eternal consequences outside of the Christian
worldview, depending on what you believe,” Ryan responded. We then discussed
the eternal consequences of Buddhism, as well as the nihilistic and universalist philosophies
that abound in the world. “I don’t think I could ever have the understanding to
determine which one is right,” he concluded.
I explained my sense of urgency in evangelism (that is,
telling people about Christianity with the hope that they will become
Christian) using football as a comparison. I support the Adelaide Crows, but it
doesn’t hugely bother me who my friends support, as it’s a fairly insignificant
thing. However, I don’t see a person’s religious belief as being insignificant,
because I believe that people who reject Jesus will go to hell. Hence it would
be extremely unloving to keep my faith to myself. As Jesus himself said,
I am the way and the
truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
This is a huge claim that Christianity makes. If
Christianity is right, everything else is wrong, and everybody who doesn’t
follow Jesus stands condemned. It’s an offensive, divisive message. But if I
believe it to be true, how could I possibly keep silent?
Ryan countered that by pointing out that there is often a
similar sense of urgency among Buddhists to share their faith. Ryan also
pointed out his concern for animal welfare, and highlighted that Buddhism has
more to say on this issue than Christianity. From that point of view, Buddhism
speaks to him a lot clearer than Christianity does.
“So you’d look at different religions through your lens?” I
asked. “You’ve got your values, they’re the parameters, and you need to see
something that satisfies that?”
“Yeah, I want to be a better person in terms of what I see a
better person as being. Not everyone will care about animals like I do. If I come
across something in the Bible that doesn’t support my beliefs, it’s hard to
keep expanding my view by reading the Bible until it begins to make sense.”
I could see where Ryan was coming from. Humanism and
naturalism fit well with his thinking, so it would be difficult for him to
stray too far from those philosophies. Essentially, Ryan’s objection to
Christianity was from a philosophical point of view. Although he thought it
likely that parts of the Bible were exaggerated, it wasn’t a lack of belief in
the physical claims of the Bible that prevented him from accepting
Christianity. It was an inability to reconcile every aspect of Christian
teaching with what he saw as being sensible and ethical philosophy. It would be
impossible to believe in a perfect God when you thought he was wrong on some
issues. And I see this as being a big stumbling block to Christianity. There
are times when our imperfect, sinful, human minds don’t desire the things that
God desires. When you approach this problem with a belief in God, the natural
response is to strive to align our desires with God’s (often a very difficult
task!). But when you approach this problem without a belief in God, the natural
response is to object to what would seem like oppressive rules. I would
encourage anyone who finds themselves objecting to Christianity on a philosophical
basis to do two things. Firstly, look into the physical evidence for
Christianity. I doubt you will be converted on the spot, but hopefully the
realisation that Christianity is actually quite a rational, well-founded belief
will give you a fresh perspective on the matter. Secondly, find a Christian
person and discuss your objections with them. You may find that someone who has
wrestled themselves with many of these tough questions will be helpful in
explaining to you how they reconcile God’s desires with our tendency to desire
different things.
